In a recent ruling, the Madras High Court ruled assessment orders issued under Section 84 of the Tamil Nadu Value Added Tax ( TNVAT ) Act, 2006, as unsustainable due to the lack of notice to the petitioner. The court has directed the re-adjudication of these orders, ensuring that the petitioner is provided with a reasonable opportunity to present their case.
The petitioner, M/s. Styline Exports, filed two writ petitions challenging the orders issued by the Assistant Commissioner on the grounds that they were not put on notice before such orders were issued.
Assessment orders were issued on 27.12.2018. In response, the petitioner filed rectification applications. Subsequently, orders were passed without issuing notice to the petitioner. These writ petitions were filed under these circumstances.
Section 84 of the TNVAT Act allows for rectification of any error apparent from the record in any order passed by an authority under the Act. It empowers the assessing authority to amend such orders to correct errors.
V. Sundareswaran, representing the petitioner, referred to the impugned orders and pointed out that such orders were issued without notice to the petitioner.
The court observed that “the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the rectification orders were issued without putting the petitioner on notice is liable to be accepted. Therefore, these orders are not sustainable.”
The bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matters for reconsideration. The respondent was directed to provide a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner, including a personal hearing, and thereafter issue fresh orders within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the court’s order.
Additionally, any recovery measures, including attachment, pursuant to the impugned rectification orders were also set aside. The writ petitions were disposed of on these terms without any order as to costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions were closed.
C. Harsha Raj, Additional Government Pleader, appeared on behalf of the respondent.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
